|
Forums >
General Industry >
Objectification of women in photography.
What a great thread...I'll be back as soon as I make more popcorn. Dec 28 05 01:45 am Link I did encounter the objectification issue often with an earlier generation of models, those who came of age in the 70s; my radical feminist friend Lisa in particular would challenge me on this all the time, even though she did model for me and was an art model in her earlier starving artist days. The current generation of models seems to have a completely different take on this, which I can only describe as an understanding that, even though they take what superficially appears to be a more passive role in creating a typical photograph, they in fact exercise a great deal of control. If they hadn't agreed to pose, then the image could not exist; then, they choose what to wear (or not), how much of their emotional selves to bring to the surface, and so much more. I'm actually hoping a model will step up and tell us more about this, until I have a chance to talk in greater detail with a few of my favorite muses. But I think one difference is that in earlier years, I occasionally encountered women who, in trying to extend their freedom and equality, were willing to get a little combative at times. They rejected existing roles, but hadn't really formulated a viable alternative yet, or at least they were still finding the edges of a hastily-carved, untested, somewhat narrow, and poorly defined new role. Rebellion, of necessity, came first. Creating a replacement set of values took much longer. Today, it seems that women in the U.S. enjoy at least some additional level of freedom, recognize that they do indeed have choices on how to present themselves to the world, and as a result are able to be more self-confident. I've largely avoided this dilemma at least in recent years because what I do is provide a connection... I take viewers inside a subculture that might otherwise be closed to them. Sure, I prefer to photograph women, who even though I rarely ask tend to wear little or nothing; I make no apologies for that. Certainly I bring my own way of seeing, my own biases, my own context. But I work within corners of society which play by their own rules, create their own unique identities, and to some extent I document, and let the end viewer be the judge. Dec 28 05 01:53 am Link Photography is a funny thing in that objectification is the essence of the art. If a photograph fails to objectify something - be it animal, vegetable or mineral - the frame will be quite boring (all white or all black.) I've heard this argument from a few women in my life - that taking pictures of naked women constitutes objectification - but I disagree. There's a difference between objectifying women and exploiting them, and I think much of feminist theory overlooks that distinction. Of course, sometimes it's virtually impossible to tell the difference. I took a look at your port, D. Brian Nelson - from my point of view, a couple of your images do lean toward being exploitative. However, that's just my opinion. Dec 28 05 02:14 am Link ART is basically the creation of subjective ideas into an objective medium. If the personification of pulchritude is an affront to some feminists it would seem to me they have a definite problem. If I or you create a beautiful picture of a gorgeous woman and it produces a "reaction" usually of admiration or a hunger to gaze on this depiction of beauty, or even if its sometimes a work that incites fear, disgust, anger, revolt or quite the opposite the fact that it has produced a reaction an emotion makes it real ART. Conversely if a picture leaves you with "blahs "/ an indifferent feeling it is essentially a failed piece of work. Whether taking female images is exploitation...if those images are blatantly crass , without any subtlety, and are pure unadulterated porn we venture into the realms of immature Peeping Tomism, or perverse sexuality and kink. And this is really taking advantage of interests in perversion or the para normal, if there is such a category, and I can understand that this could cause repressed indignity or even anger to many, especially female viewers. Conversely Generations of Artists from Botticelli , Rubens, Poussin --To present day Artists like Helmut Newton, Mapletorpe have used the human female form to portray its beauty and variance. Then we we examine the work of Ruth Bernhard and compare it to Diane Arbus, both female artists we catch a glimmer of the very different subjective views on female sexuality exploitation. There are so many variances on this subject, that I for one cannot formulate a clear conclusion. Dec 28 05 02:45 am Link THere is lots of good stuff here...but i am too sleepy to properly respond. But, I will be back tomorrow. Dec 28 05 04:14 am Link mphot wrote: I'm gonna get a little "Zen-ny" here (zenesque??) Dec 28 05 11:07 am Link I did a shoot once with a woman who really didn't want to be a model - she is a professional dancer (so of course I met her waiting tables at the restaurant next to my studio.  ) But she is SO gorgeous that I just wouldn't give in and eventually she did a set with me. Pics were great, and we had a good time. But what she said when we were done was, "That was very liberating." Take that, "objectification" whiners. M Dec 28 05 12:28 pm Link I have yet to be convinced by any of the nay-sayers that objectification is necessarily a bad thing... Dec 28 05 12:40 pm Link Sanders McNew wrote: That might be because if you look at random online glam and lingerie photos, what you're mostly seeing is lowest common denominator stuff. These are photographers who, for the most part, have never asked themselves why they do what they do, who either pander to a mass market mentality or to their own rather simplistic fantasies generated by the mass media. Dec 28 05 01:00 pm Link Mayanlee wrote: OK, I like your attitude too. My own background is conservative but my current position on almost everything is libertarian. Cause no harm, make no threats, let me do as I wish with myself and my stuff, and leave me alone. I'll do the same. Dec 28 05 02:49 pm Link As a film student in school focusing on film theory and screenwriting, this was one of the continual topics of research for me related to Feudian psychology and feminist film theory. My short response for now: is objectification necessarily sexualization? and is sexualization necessarily, and innately, degrading and subjugating? Dec 28 05 11:33 pm Link Let me try this again: If you create a photograph of a person, are you objectifying the person, or are you actually personifying what was formerly a blank piece of paper? Dec 29 05 12:05 am Link Glen Berry wrote: The person. Dec 29 05 12:36 am Link You say that like it's a bad thing. Dec 29 05 03:07 am Link images by elahi wrote: Oh, for pete's sake.... Dec 29 05 06:06 am Link Mayanlee wrote: I certainly can...and do everytime I press the shutter. I'm glad someone as brilliant as you is here to put concepts like this in terms we can all understand. Dec 29 05 06:36 am Link i've had this argument ad nauseum with an aggressive man-hater friend of mine (not a feminist, just a man-hater - big difference), and i think that it is too specific to be useful. is a model 'objectified'? of course, but so is the garbage man, database administrator, president, chimney sweeper, santa claus, etc. to objectify is to present as an object. anyone with any social function is objectified. Dec 29 05 07:22 am Link Mayanlee wrote: Mayanlee wrote: Voice of reason. When I photograph a woman, my goal is to bring out the beauty and sensuality of the female. Objectification? Yes, by definition. Am I degrading women by trying to capture their sensuality? THAT depends on the viewpoint of the viewer. I totally agree with Mayan Lee, exaltation of the female is always my goal - even if it is considered objectification. If people feel that my work exploits women then they don't understand my work or my goal. Artists for centuries exalted women in their paintings, why would photography be different. Dec 29 05 07:48 am Link I kept coming back to this thread and wanted to reply...but Mayan Lee just said in 6 sentences what would have taken me multiple paragraphs. Thank you! Dec 29 05 08:34 am Link Glen Berry wrote: William Kious wrote: That's totally backwards from what really happens. Dec 29 05 12:48 pm Link Glen Berry wrote: I think you are over-thinking things a bit. You can't give the paper human attributes - you are only capturing a static two-dimensional image. To personify the paper, you would have to make it do something people do (like talk, walk or reason.) Glen Berry wrote: On a very basic level, if you objectify, you are treating a human being as an object. Capturing a person's image in a picture is the essence of turning the living, breathing human into a static object. The same can be said on the psychological, internal level. A photograph is an object that represents a living thing. Glen Berry wrote: It's representational of the person. There are cultures who believe that taking a human's picture steals part of his/her soul. Haven't you had someone say, "Do I really look like that?" after seeing a picture you took? You are changing their self-perceptions with a photo. Hell, I could argue that taking pictures of a beautiful model makes her more conceited (just for the sake of argument.) Glen Berry wrote: Who "confuses" a picture with the actual person? Furthermore, how can the observer confuse a picture with the actual person if he/she has never seen the person represented in the photograph? Dec 30 05 01:53 pm Link I haven't read this thread until now and, boy, was I missing out. There are so many great points that are being made. I like what William said: there is a difference between objectifying and exploiting women. Dec 30 05 02:17 pm Link I don't think my original question applies well to those who do fantasy work, commercial photography, or anything where the end image isn't supposed to describe a specific person. Your question not only applies, it may be the most important question of all in fiction: does the author care about -- breath through, live with, die with -- his characters? Advertising copywriting may be kind of funny as regards its relationship to fiction, but whether tapping the comic or tragic in our lives, it speaks to both the common in living and the universal. That's how it works: we buy into representations or express ourselves through associated objects. Constantly. Dec 30 05 10:03 pm Link Merlinpix wrote: haha Nice. I think the real issue of objectification on women is that it is everywhere, almost a bit too much. If men and women were both objectified the same amount it wouldn't be as big of a deal. Objectification of women just stems from the whole women not feeling equal to men. The amount of nudity and focus I see of women in the media compared to men is not even close. Honestly...I'd like to see a little more guy rather than a bunch on chics everywhere. Sex sells and I'm a straight female not a male Apr 18 12 11:14 pm Link Everything we do, and everything we are in this life, objectifies us to some degree. I have no issue presenting myself as an "object," because I become an object of sorts every time I identify myself in a context. Hard to explain, but objectification is just a part of being alive and living in a culture that will, inevitably, shape and define us. At least with modeling, I have some control over what that object/image evolves into. In daily life, without the benefit of still capture - in our jobs, families, social settings - we have little control over how others choose to objectify us in their own minds. Aside: What is the name of the book you are reading, OP? I did a Women's Studies (now referred to as Gender Studies) minor in college, and identify as a Feminist. Many of the texts I read back then seemed almost holy to me at the time. In hindsight, as I have developed fully into my politics and adulthood, I find much of the conjecture that used to seem so relevant, to be overly-simplistic, stereotyping, and objectifying in its own way. Apr 19 12 06:41 am Link I think this like some many similar issues is a failure from the start. Objectifying the subject is the issue, gender isn't an issue. Apr 19 12 06:48 am Link ADG Photography wrote: Me three!!:-))))) Apr 19 12 06:52 am Link God rarely, if ever, makes beauty . . . not to be noticed. Apr 19 12 06:52 am Link Look at the dates of the posts. This thread was dead for 7 years. Apr 19 12 06:56 am Link Dossett Photography wrote: funny Apr 19 12 06:57 am Link Old thread is OLD. Apr 19 12 07:02 am Link Though I believe in equal pay for equal work & women having a choice what they can & cannot do w/ their own bodies (to name just a couple issues), I think the feminist movement pretty much died when they started using stripper poles in their own homes & calling it "exercise". Apr 19 12 07:04 am Link Scarlett Candee wrote: lol. Very nice necro ! Apr 19 12 07:08 am Link Another old thread revived - seems to be the week for that - but still a relevant topic. Photography is about capturing the visual characteristics of something material. In that sense it is about objectifying things. We are visual creatures and form almost immediate impressions about almost anything we view, based on our immediate visual impression of it. In my mind to say we shouldn't objectify things (objects), is to deny the reality of human existence. People also tend to prefer beautiful imagery over imagery that is not beautiful. That's not just true of women, that's true of kids, of dogs of landscapes, etc. Most people would rather hang a beautiful photo of a sunset they took on their wall, than a photo of the local landfill. Again, that's human nature, and I think it's silly to argue it should be otherwise or that there's something wrong with capturing and appreciating beauty. Apr 19 12 07:09 am Link How does one even find a thread 2300 days old, much less respond to it like it just happened yesterday? I just don't get it, pet peeve I guess. Apr 19 12 07:24 am Link Scarlett Candee wrote: Almost 7 years old, which means it's been long enough that reviving it was a good idea considering it's relevance. This is a good read. Apr 19 12 07:27 am Link RBM Photo wrote: I don't either. Apr 19 12 07:28 am Link Does this mean I havta shoot pix with me eyes closed . . .  SOS Apr 19 12 07:29 am Link RBM Photo wrote: One can find old threads by using the Search feature. Apr 19 12 07:31 am Link Comparing and contrasting. 7 years. Is our collective IQ dropping? Apr 19 12 07:32 am Link |
